Appellants Brief Archives - Lawless America

After almost three months, Bill Windsor Appellants Brief in Attempted Murder by 18-Wheeler has finally been docketed. Please excuse numbering errors as WordPress caused these in the copy and paste process:

Here is the PDF: 6D23-2476-APPELLANT S-BRIEF-on-Merits-Inital-2023-08-25

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

APPEAL OF THE STATE OF

FLORIDA SIXTH DISTRICT

WILLIAM WINDSOR, CASE NO.: 6D23-2476

CASE NO. 2018-CA-010270-O

Plaintiff,

vs.

ROBERT KEITH LONGEST, an individual, and BOISE CASCADE BUILDING MATERIALS DISTRIBUTION, L.L.C., a Foreign Limited Liability Company,

Defendants.

__________________________________________________________________

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

William M. Windsor, Plaintiff, Appellant 5013 S Louise Ave #1134, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108 352-###-#### — windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com

Matthew J. Conigliaro, Defendants’ Appellate Attorneys Carlton Fields, P.A., 4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000 Tampa, Florida 33607, (813) 229-4254 mconigliaro@carltonfields.com, devans@carltonfields.com, tpaecf@cfdom.net

Blake Mansker — Scott Warburton, Defendants’ Attorneys Adams | Coogler, P.A., 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. Suite 1600, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, 561 -478-4500 Fax: 561-478-7847 bmansker@adamscoogler.com, rurban@adamscoogler.com, swarburton@adamscoogler.com, and ajohnson@adamscoogler.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………….. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………i

TABLE OF CITATIONS………………………………………………………. ii

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ………………………………………………….	1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT………………………………………………….	40
ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………………41
ARGUMENT I — THE DEFENDANTS NEVER FILED A
LAWFUL ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT, SO THERE WAS
NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ACTIONS OF THE JUDGES
OR THE DEFENDANTS. WINDSOR WON BY DEFAULT…..	41
ARGUMENT II — WINDSOR WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS
IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND FLORIDA………………………………….	42

ARGUMENT III — THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION OR FLORIDA STATUTE TO ALLOW A JUDGE TO

DENY OR REVOKE WINDSOR’S RIGHT OF SELF-
REPRESENTATION…………………………………………………….	57
ARGUMENT IV — THE 03/22/2023-ORDER VIOLATES
FLORIDA STATUTE 38.10, THE GENERAL FLORIDA
DISQUALIFICATION STATUTE…………………………………….	58

ARGUMENT V — THE CASES CITED BY JUDGE JEFF ASHTON DO NOT PROVIDE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REVOKE WINDSOR’S RIGHT OF SELF-REPRESENTATION AS HE DID……..59

ARGUMENT VI — THERE IS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DENY

WINDSOR HIS RIGHT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF……………………….. 61

ARGUMENT VII — THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND OTHER

FILINGS BY THE DEFENDANTS ARE UNSIGNED AND MUST

BE DISREGARDED AND CONSIDERED VOID…………………………………. 63

ARGUMENT VIII — THIS CASE INVOLVES VOID ORDERS AND

JUDGMENTS THAT HAVE NO LEGAL EFFECT……………………………… 65

ARGUMENT IX — THERE IS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DENY

WINDSOR THE RIGHT TO FILE A MOTION TO RECUSE AND

DISQUALIFY JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON…………………..65

ARGUMENT X — THE ACTIONS OF JEFF ASHTON AND

THE FLORIDA COURTS ARE CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF

18 U.S.C. 1519………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 67

ARGUMENT XI — JEFF ASHTON AND THE CLERK OF

COURT DESTROYED EVIDENCE AND VIOLATED

FLORIDA STATUTE 839.13………………………………………………………………………………….. 68

ARGUMENT XII — THERE ARE NO FACTUAL FINDINGS

TO SUPPORT DISMISSAL……………………………………………………………………………………… 69

ARGUMENT XIII — JEFF ASHTON COMMITTED MANY

VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW, RULES, AND CODES………………………. 69

ARGUMENT XIV — THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS TO

REQUIRE WINDSOR TO RETAIN AN ATTORNEY OR HAVE

HIS CASE DISMISSED, ESPECIALLY SINCE HE IS IN

CHAPTER 13 BANKRUPTCY………………………………………………………………………………….. 71

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 72

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE…………………………………………………….. xi

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE………………………………………….xii

VERIFICATION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… xiii

	iii
	TABLE OF CITATIONS
CASES		PAGE NUMBER

18 U.S.C. 1519……………………………………………………41, 67

18 U.S.C. 4……………………………………………………………..72

ABA Rules of Professional Responsibility……………………….

Article I, Section 21, Florida Constitution (1968)…………..…62

Butz v. Economou, 98 S. Ct. 2894 (1978)………………………62

Cannon v. Comm. on Judicial Qualifications, (1975)

14 Cal. 3d 678, 694……………………………………………..62

Canon 3E………………………………………………………….51, 52

Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259-262, 266-267 (1978)….51

Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259-262, 266-267 (1978)….66

Concrete Pipe & Prods. V. Constr. Laborers Pension,

508 U.S. 602, 617 (1993) (citation omitted)…………..54, 55

Crosby v. State, 97 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1957)………………………51

Crosby v. State, 97 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1957)………………………66

Daytona Migi Corp. v. Daytona Automotive Fiberglass,

417 So.2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…………………………..64

Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577, 140 So. 459 (1932)….51, 66

Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)………………………….62

Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382 (1894)………………..62

Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905………………62

Faretta v. California (1975)…………………………………………62

Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 1978)…….62

Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct……………………..12

Florida Code of Judicial Conduct……………………… 51, 52, 59

Florida Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 1, 2, and 3……….66

Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3-B (7) and E. 2 I

.……………………………………………………………….59, 66

Florida Constitution § 9……………………………………….42, 61

Florida Criminal Statute 839.13………………………………..

Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule-2.330…………….59

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule-1.140……………………42

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule-1.190 (e)………………..35

Florida Rules of Judicial Admin 2.160………………………59, 66

Florida Statute 38.02………………………………………………..59

Florida Statute 38.10………………………………………………..59

Florida Statute 839.13………………………………………………68

Florida Statute 92.525……………………………………………..xiii

Florida Statutes……………………………………………………….59

Geiler v. Comm. on Judicial Qualifications, (1973)

10 Cal.3d 270, 286………………………………………………..62

Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U.S. 657, 662 (1893)……………………62

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 (1970)…………………….53

Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966)……………………..62

Gonzalez v. Comm. on Judicial Performance, (1983)

33 Cal. 3d 359, 371, 374…………………………………………62

Haines v. Kerner (1972)……………………………………………….62

In Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885)………………….61

In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955)…………………………….56

In re United States of America, 441 F.3d at 66…………………56

In re: Windsor, Petition in U.S. Supreme Court Case#22-7648…………………………………………..…1, 28, 65

In re: Windsor, Case#6-21-bk-04061 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida…..……………….…..2

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959)………………62

Johnson v. Mississippi, 403 U.S. 212, 216 (1971)……….54, 55

Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123,

172, (1951)…………………………………………………….51, 66

Judiciary Act of 1789…………………………………………………61

Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321, 337 (1885)…….62

Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960)

………………………………………………………………………..54, 55

Liteky v U.S., 510 US 540 (1994)………………………………….54

Littleton v. Berbling, 468 F.2d 389, 412 (7th Cir. 1972)…….56

Lowery v. Kaplan 650 So. 2d 114 (4 DCA 1995)………………58

Maid of the Mist v. Alcatraz Media, Superior Court of Gwinnett County Georgia, Case#05A-10097-3……………2

Maid of the Mist v. Alcatraz Media, USDCNDGA

Case#1-06-CV-0714-ODE-Docket—361-362……………..….2

Marchant v. Pennsylvania R.R., 153 U.S. 380, 386 (1894)

……………………………………………………………………..…..52, 53

Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980)….51, 53, 66

Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 344 (1976)……………….66

Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938)………….62

Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1096 (11th Cir. 2008)………56

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603……….62

Nicholson Supply Co. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc.,

184 So.2d 438 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1966)……………………………64

Ninth Judicial Circuit Courtroom Decorum Policy……………..12

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442………………….62

Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S. Ct. 11, 13 (1954)

…………………………………………………………………………..54, 55

Olmstad v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)…………………..62

Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat (22 U.S.)

738, 866, 6 L.Ed 204 (1824)…………………………………56, 62

Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 502 (1972)………………………54, 55

Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals…………………………………………………….62

Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1072 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (en banc)……………………………………………..57

Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233………………………………………….62

Quinn v. Housing Auth. of Orlando, 385 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)……………………………………………………………64

Rodriguez-Diaz v. Abate 613 So, 2d 515 (3DCA 1993)…………58

Rule 2.160, Fla. R. Jud. Admin………………………………..51, 52

Rule 2.515 of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration.….64

Rule 2.6 of the Rules of Judicial Conduct published by the American Bar Association………………………………………..62

Rule 9.210(a)(2)(B) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure…………………………………………………………….xii

Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 195 (1982)……………….

Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)……………………………62

Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)………………62

Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649………………………………….62

Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934)…………..53

State ex rel. Davis v. Parks, 141 Fla. 516, 194 So. 613

(1939)…………………………………………………………..51, 66

State ex rel. Mickle v. Rowe, 100 Fla. 1382, 131 So. 3331 (1930)…………………………………………………………..52, 66

Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n. 35, 96 S. Ct. 3037……..54

Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312, 332……………………………62

U.S. Constitution……………………………………………………..61

U.S. Constitution Fourteenth Amendment, § 1……………….

U.S. Constitution Sixth Amendment…………………………….44

U.S. v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1990)………………56

U.S.C. § 1654.…………………………………………………………61

United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261

(1882)……………………………………………………………….62

Wanda I. Rufin, P.A. v. Borga, 294 So.3d 916 (Fla. App. 2020)……………………………………………………………….43

Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas, 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir.

1996)……………………………………………………………….62

Weiser v. Weiser, 132 So. 3d 309, 311 (Fla. 4th DCA

2014)……………………………………………………………….42

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a civil case for personal injury negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. An Order of Dismissal against WINDSOR with Prejudice was dated 07/18/2023 in Case #2018-CA-00270-O. [APPENDIX-5001.]
But on 07/24/2023, in Appellate-Case#6D23-2476, the Clerk issued an Order to Show Cause within twenty days why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. [APPENDICES—5002-6357.]
And on 07/31/2023, in Appellate-Case#6D23-2476, an Order for Immediate Filing of Brief was issued. WINDSOR was given 30 days to serve the Initial Brief. [APPENDICES-5003-5004.]

So, here it is.

WINDSOR has not received hearing transcripts that have been promised. [APPENDICES 6405-6406-6407-6408.]
WINDSOR currently has pending U.S. Supreme Court Case #22-7648, distributed for Conference of 09/26/2023. [APPENDICES-5005-5006.] These cases are related; WINDSOR is the Pro-Se Plaintiff in both cases, and both cases involve intentional abuse of WINDSOR in denial of his Constitutional rights.

In 2005 at age 56, WINDSOR thought judges were honest and court was where justice is done. On 08/29/2005, WINDSOR, who was retired, was sued in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County Georgia, Case#05A-10097-3. The sworn complaint [APPENDIX-5007] was completely false as was proven in depositions and affidavits. [APPENDIX-5008.] See USDCNDGA Case#1-06-CV-0714-ODE-Docket—361-362. [APPENDIX-6358.]
Despite the overwhelming facts and the law, Judge Orinda D. Evans (“JUDGE EVANS”) entered an order for the Plaintiffs. [APPENDIX-5009.] WINDSOR has sworn under penalty of perjury that her Order contained 210 false statements. [APPENDIX-6403.] WINDSOR believes a 32-year federal judge doesn’t make 210 “errors” in one order; she committed 210 corrupt acts to benefit the largest law firm in Georgia.
The actions of JUDGE EVANS, Judge Thomas W. Thrash (“JUDGE THRASH,”) and the 11TH CIRCUIT cost WINDSOR millions of dollars and wiped out his finances. He has struggled financially ever since and, at age 74, is in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy (Case#6-21-bk-04061 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida). [APPENDICES-5011-5012.]

WINDSOR was brought up by wonderful parents who never lied, and they taught him this important lesson. WINDSOR has never lied in a legal matter, and he became committed to trying to make a difference in the legal system with those, like himself, who could not afford attorneys.
Blessed with a MENSA IQ, very strong reading and comprehension skills, and 42-words-per-minute typing speed with two fingers, WINDSOR studied paralegal work and, in 2010, began helping people (at no charge) who could not afford attorneys or paralegals (63% of the parties in civil courts today). 13 years later, he has helped several thousand people for free.
In 1967, WINDSOR began working in radio and television. He was in a special Press Corps at the Apollo 11 Launch. In 1977, he began publishing magazines.
In 2008, WINDSOR began publishing articles online about Pro-Se issues, and in 2009, he began hosting an online radio show for those who could not afford attorneys. In 2010, he hosted an online video conference and was contacted by over 10,000 people who wanted to tell him their stories of INjustice. This led to WINDSOR driving to all 50 states and DC in 2012 and 2013 to film

a documentary about government, judicial, and law enforcement corruption. The plan was to film 51 people, but 2500 showed up to be filmed. He managed to film 1500 in a year. Constituents of members of the House and Senate met WINDSOR in D.C. to personally deliver the Documentary to their legislators in 2013. (See https://www.LawlessAmerica.com and https://www.YouTube.com/LawlessAmerica.)

In late May 2011, WINDSOR was informed by radio talk show hosts of a plan to have him killed. WINDSOR notified the FBI and spoke with agent Harry Hammick but nothing was investigated. (See https://lawlessamerica.com/william-m-windsor-again-concerned-with-threats-from-the-us-government/.)
WINDSOR received hundreds of threats from people on the other side of stories he shared. It began about the time he managed to help encourage a judge to vacate an order that required a 13-year-old girl to have unsupervised sleep-over visits with her biological father who sexually molested her.
WINDSOR seems to be hated by every dishonest judge he encounters. His legal history is filled with dishonest and corrupt acts by judges.

On 08/04/2013, an attempt was made to murder WINDSOR. He was shot at on the Interstate in Montana, but the bullets hit a car to his right. [APPENDICES-5013-5014.] He received an email taking credit for the shooting, and WINDSOR was able to trace the IP to identify the shooter as Sean Boushie, a Montana man who had threatened WINDSOR hundreds of times because he filmed a woman Sean Boushie hated. [APPENDIX-5015.] See https://www.SeanBoushie.com. Two police departments, two sheriffs departments, and four courts did nothing. It became clear to WINDSOR that Boushie was protected by government people.
On 05/05/2017, an 18-wheeler smashed into WINDSOR at 70 miles per hour on the Florida Turnpike and sent WINDSOR and his car airborne. [APPENDIX-5054.]
MRIs, CT-SCANS, X-Rays, Ultrasounds, Nerve Conduction Studies, and more have been done since 05/05/2017. MRIs taken on 03/31/2023 reveal that WINDSOR’s injuries have progressed as there has been no medical treatment due to no money. He now has three Herniated Discs in his back, five Herniated Discs in his neck, ten Disc Bulges, and a Diastasis Recti abdominal injury… all generated by the DEFENDANTS on

05/05/2017. [APPENDICES-5016-5017.]

WINDSOR is in constant pain. He can barely walk with assistance. He has no balance. He has fallen as many as 100 times. He uses a walker and a cane, but he cannot go more than 30-feet without needing to rest.
He has difficulty sleeping and never more than a few hours at a time. He has lost 12 teeth and was recently told all remaining teeth must be extracted. This has been caused by medication WINDSOR takes for anxiety due to the accident and aftermath.
WINDSOR’s only hope for some relief came from this personal injury lawsuit (Case #2018-CA-010270-O (“010270”)) as his personal insurance coverage ran out long ago. WINDSOR was in excellent physical health before he was crushed on 05/05/2017.
010270 was instituted in the Ninth Judicial Circuit in Orange County, Florida on 09/20/2018. [APPENDIX-5018.] It was filed by Dan Newlin & Partners (“NEWLIN”). The filing fee was paid. [APPENDIX-6362-P.30.] 010270 was assigned to Judge Lisa T. Munyon. (“JUDGE MUNYON”). NEWLIN did not consult with WINDSOR, and the Complaint contained stupid errors.

NEWLIN began Discovery in the case when the Complaint was filed. [APPENDICES–5062-5063-5064-5065.]
On 10/10/2018, Discovery was filed by the DEFENDANTS,

but unsigned. [APPENDICES-5066-6304.] DISREGARD.¹ Answers to Interrogatories were also unsigned. [APPENDICES-5068-5069.]

DISREGARD.

On 11/16/2018, the DEFENDANTS filed Answers to Admissions, and both were signed with signed Certificates of Service as well. [APPENDICES-5070-5071.] So, the DEFENDANTS know how to sign.
But the Answers contain false statements and evade providing valid answers. [APPENDIX-5070–#3-#4-#6.] [APPENDIX-5071–#6-#8.] DISREGARD.

After NEWLIN was terminated, WINDSOR sought additional discovery. [APPENDICES-6319-6320-6321-6322-6323-6324-5052-5053-5057-5058-5051.]
Virtually everything filed by the DEFENDANTS in 010270 has been unsigned and violates the Rules. APPENDIX-5019 is a

Unsworn statements must be disregarded by this court. This NOTICE will be used each time. APPENDIX-6410 shows all filings are unsworn.

DOCKET, and a check of filings by the DEFENDANTS will show them unsigned. APPENDIX-6410 is an analysis of every filing by the DEFENDANTS. It shows all 97 unsigned. These must be disregarded by the court in considering FACTS.

The DEFENDANTS filed a joint unsigned ANSWER on 10/10/2018. [APPENDIX-5021.] It contains LIES.
010270 was transferred to Judge John Marshall Kest (“JUDGE KEST”) on 08/25/2020 [APPENDIX-6351], and he approved an amended complaint on 10/20/2020. [APPENDIX-5082-08/19/2020.] [APPENDIX-5020-10/10/2020.]
010270 is about auto negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, dishonesty, abuse, corruption, and the destruction of WINDSOR’s health and life.
Case#010270 has been pending for five years with seven Defense attorneys and four trial settings [APPENDICES-5023-5024-5025-5026.]
On 02/05/2019, NEWLIN took a one-hour Deposition of LONGEST. WINDSOR was not notified of the Deposition, and the information he needed was neither sought nor obtained by NEWLIN. [APPENDICES-5075-6241.]

On 04/08/2019, WINDSOR’s Deposition was taken. In a stunning change, a NEWLIN attorney actually notified him of the date and time. [APPENDIX-6242.]
On 10/04/2019, a Mediation was held. It was a complete waste of time. The DEFENDANTS’ attorney claimed he was unfamiliar with the case, and another NEWLIN attorney was definitely unfamiliar with the case.
On 02/26/2020, a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for WINDSOR was filed by NEWLIN. [APPENDIX-6409.]
On 03/19/2020, WINDSOR terminated NEWLIN [APPENDICES–5049-5050] because WINDSOR was completely unhappy with their work and lack of work.
On 03/19/2020, an ORDER confirmed removal of NEWLIN as WINDSOR’s attorney. [APPENDIX-5050.]
WINDSOR began representing himself Pro-Se. He is not an attorney, but he has independently studied law and has represented himself in various actions for over 25-years.
When WINDSOR obtained the files from NEWLIN’S firm, he discovered an even worse job than he had anticipated. He began work on problems with motions to compel interrogatories, compel

production, and objections to admissions. The DOCKET shows this work. [APPENDIX-5019.]

On 06/24/2020, WINDSOR also filed Motions for Sanctions for Fraud on the Court against both LONGEST and BOISE. [APPENDICES-5055-5056.]
On 06/24/2020, WINDSOR filed a sworn affidavit swearing as to the events of 05/05/2017. [APPENDIX-5054.]
On 07/01/2020, WINDSOR filed Amended Motions for Sanctions for Fraud on the Court against both LONGEST and BOISE. [APPENDICES-5059-5060.]
On 07/07/2020, a Hearing was held. [APPENDIX-6314.] The request to File an Amended Complaint was denied without prejudice and claimed paragraphs 15-21-22-23-24-25-26-46 were improperly plead and that the matters are barred from this litigation. On the Motion to Compel Incomplete Answers to Interrogatories, the Court required a better answer to interrogatory #8 and allowed the DEFENDANTS 20-days to answer. [APPENDICES-6315-6316-6317.]
On 07/20/2020, the DEFENDANTS filed one of the most frivolous motions in the history of Florida civil courts.

DEFENDANTS’ unsigned Emergency Motion Requesting the Court to Determine if Plaintiff William Windsor is Mentally Competent to Represent Himself was filed. [APPENDIX-5061.] It’s as FRIVOLOUS as can be as part of their campaign of INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. DISREGARD.

It became clear that the DEFENDANTS knew they could get away with anything. The attorneys repeatedly sought dismissal because they knew they would lose on the facts of the case. They also dreamed up outlandish motions to dismiss because they knew this would distress WINDSOR.
On 07/27/2020, WINDSOR filed a Motion to Cancel Hearing and Strike Competency Motion. [APPENDIX-5077.] It was denied. [APPENDIX-5078.]
DEFENDANTS filed an unsigned Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Obey USDC 02/12/2018 Order [APPENDIX-6411.] WINDSOR did not violate a federal court order, and that is not a state court issue. The USDC order provided only none sanction an only by the USDC. This Motion was about as frivolous as the motion to declare the Plaintiff incompetent.
The DEFENDANTS filed over a dozen requests to dismiss

in 010270 – all baseless, yet the judges let them get away with it. They have claimed a plaintiff can have his case dismissed if he is old and has some memory challenges; they have claimed a case can be dismissed if a party uses social media; they have claimed use of social media violates the COURTROOM Decorum Policy; they have claimed a case can be dismissed if a member of the press for the last 57 years continued to publish; they have claimed a case can be dismissed if the Plaintiff is in bankruptcy and has no money to pay for an attorney; a case can be dismissed if a party files evidence. On top of all this, they lie and lie and lie.

On 07/27/2020, the DEFENDANTS each filed a motion to dismiss due to a claim of failure to obey a USDC Order. [APPENDIX-6411.]
On 07/28/2020, an Order was issued Denying WINDSOR’s Motion to Cancel 08/04/2020 Hearing and Motion to Strike DEFENDANTS’ Emergency Motion to require WINDSOR to Comply with the Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct. [APPENDIX-5078.].
WINDSOR’s motions were either ignored or denied with no legal or factual basis. See the 010270-DOCKET for other filings as

there is not sufficient word count to address here. [APPENDIX-6399.]

None of the exhibits presented by the DEFENDANTS in 010270 were authenticated as required by the Rules. The ONLY sworn or verified statements in five years are in APPENDIX-5139, so there is nothing to discuss about Facts when the only facts in the case are from WINDSOR.
On 07/30/2020, WINDSOR filed First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Notices of Filing Exhibits. [APPENDICES-5080-5081-5083-5084-5085.] These exhibits provided evidence in opposition to DEFENDANTS’ Emergency Motion to Determine Competency and Enforce Adherence and for Sanctions and/or were in opposition to the 08/04/2020 hearing. Theses exhibits prove false claims in the DEFENDANTS’ Motions.
On 08/04/2020, LONGEST and BOISE filed a Motion for Protective Order [APPENDIX-5091.]
On 08/11/2020, Orders were issued denying WINDSOR’s Motions for Sanctions Against LONGEST and BOISE for Fraud on the Court. [APPENDICES-5096-5097.] These Orders are outrageous. WINDSOR presented evidence of 196 violations.

On 08/11/2020, WINDSOR filed a Response to Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Strike. [APPENDIX-5094.]
On 08/18/2020, WINDSOR filed Exhibits in Opposition to DEFENDANTS’ 07/20/2020 Motion to Dismiss for use at 08/25/2020 Hearing. [APPENDICES-5100-5101-5102.]
On 08/18/2020, WINDSOR filed a signed Request for Judicial Notice as to many cases. [APPENDIX-5099.]
WINDSOR filed motions for sanctions with law and evidence galore, and the judges ignored them and then claimed WINDSOR violated the rules.
On 08/18/2020, WINDSOR filed an extensive Memorandum of Law on filing restrictions. [APPENDIX-5103.]
On 08/19/2020, an ORDER Granting Protective Order was issued on All Discovery Pending Determination of Competency and Dismissal. [APPENDIX-6333.]
WINDSOR’s Motions for Reconsideration of Order on Motion for Sanctions Against LONGEST and BOISE for Fraud on the Court were filed on 08/23/2020. [APPENDICES-6334-6335.]
On 08/20/2022, WINDSOR filed EXHIBITS for the 08/25/2020 HEARING. [APPENDICES-5104-5105.]

On 08/22/2022, WINDSOR filed Requests for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on two orders. [010270-DOCKET-187-188.] Both were ignored.
On 08/23/2020, WINDSOR signed and filed Motions for Reconsideration of orders on motions for sanctions for Fraud on the Court. [APPENDICES-6334-6335.] WINDSOR believes the denial of these motions proves judicial corruption.
On 08/24/2020, WINDSOR verified and filed a Motion for Continuance of the 08/25/2020 HEARING. [010270-DOCKET-192.]
On 08/25/2020, WINDSOR filed his Response to the Emergency Motion Requesting the Court to determine if WINDSOR was Competent to Represent Himself and requiring him to Comply with the Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct. [APPENDIX-5108.] WINDSOR is not a member of the Florida Bar, and those rules CLEARLY apply ONLY to attorneys who are members.
On 08/25/2020, WINDSOR filed a Verified Motion to Disqualify JUDGE MUNYON. [APPENDIX-6270.] It was granted. [APPENDIX-6413.] Judge John Marshall Kest (“JUDGE KEST”) was named to replace JUDGE MUNYON. [APPENDIX-6351.]
WINDSOR’s Response to Motion for Competency, Motion

to Strike, and Motion for Sanctions was filed on 08/25/2020. [APPENDIX-5108.] This Notarized Response spelled out all the reasons the DEFENDANTS’ Motion was false, malicious, and frivolous.

On 08/29/2020, Motions for Sanctions were filed by WINDSOR to Strike Answers of BOISE and LONGEST for Fraud on the Court. [APPENDICES-5115-5116.] 149 reasons were detailed for each of the DEFENDANTS. 298 counts!
On 09/21/2020, DEFENDANTS filed an unsigned unverified Response to WINDSOR’s Motions for Reconsideration. [APPENDIX-5122.]
On 09/28/2020, WINDSOR filed a Verified Motion to Disqualify/Recuse JUDGE KEST. [APPENDICES-5124-5125.] It was denied improperly on 09/30/2020. [APPENDIX-5127.]
On 10/01/2020, an ORDER was entered on Defendants Motion to Dismiss and For Sanctions. [APPENDIX-5128.] The DEFENDANTS’ Motions were DENIED with an excellent explanation.
This Order did not grant any relief to the DEFENDANTS or place any requirements on WINDSOR.

On 10/20/2020, WINDSOR actually had a motion partially granted. [APPENDIX-5020.] JUDGE KEST’s Order granted WINDSOR’s motion to amend the complaint. This gave WINDSOR two causes of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and cleaned up various errors by NEWLIN.
On 11/20/2020, an ORDER Denying WINDSOR’s Second Motion to Disqualify JUDGE KEST was issued. [APPENDIX-5137.]
APPENDIX-5082 contains the Third Amended Complaint approved by JUDGE KEST. It has causes of action against each Defendant for Negligence and for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. [APPENDIX-5082—EXHIBIT-3-PP.12-14.]
On 10/01/2020, DEFENDANTS filed a Motion for Rehearing of Motion to Dismiss Based on Potential Miscommunication. [APPENDIX-5129.] WINDSOR responded. [APPENDIX-5130.] The Motion was denied. [APPENDIX-5131.]
On 11/03/2020, WINDSOR filed a Verified Motion for Reconsideration of Orders of JUDGE KEST. [APPENDIX-5132.] It was denied. [APPENDICES-5132-6345.]

On 11/04/2020, DEFENDANTS filed an unsigned, unverified notice of opposition to WINDSOR’s emergency motion for stay or continuance or in the alternative their motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. [APPENDIX-5134.] The Opposition makes many false and malicious statements. Due to no signature and no verification, WINDSOR will not waste time responding. DISREGARD.
On 11/09/2020, DEFENDANTS filed an unsigned Answer to the Amended Complaint. [APPENDIX-5022.]
On 11/09/2020, WINDSOR filed a Motion for Reconsideration of order of JUDGE KEST dated 10/20/2020 [APPENDIX-5135.]
On 11/19/2020, WINDSOR filed a Second Verified Motion to Disqualify or Recuse JUDGE KEST. [APPENDIX-5136.] It was denied. [APPENDIX-5137.]
On 11/24/2020, DEFENDANTS filed an unsigned Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. [APPENDIX-5138.]
On 01/01/2021, Jeffrey L. Ashton (“JEFF ASHTON”) became the “judge” in 010270. Since that date, JEFF ASHTON has entered 39 orders: APPENDICES-5144-5145-6300-5149-5152-

5155-5156-6298-6340-5180-5181-5182-5184-5185-5186-5187-

5189-5190-6296-5026-6294-6206-6207-6208-6336-6287-6234-

6237-6238-6246-6261-6262-6263-6264-6277-6278-6341-6343-

6302.

Of the 39 Orders entered in 010270, not a single order granted relief to WINDSOR. This is the work of a corrupt judge.
On 01/11/2023, a hearing was held. [APPENDIX 6405 is the Transcript.]
On 01/25/2021, DEFENDANTS filed the Affidavit of Scott L. Astrin. He lied about attorney’s fees. This is the only affidavit ever filed by the DEFENDANTS in 010270. Paragraphs 6-7-8 are false and constitute perjury. [APPENDIX-5139.] The DOCKET [APPENDIX-6399] shows there is no 10/10/2020-Order.
On 01/27/2023, a hearing was held. [APPENDIX 6406 is the Transcript.]
On 02/10/2023, a hearing was held. [APPENDIX 6407 is the Transcript.]
On 02/17/2021, the two DEFENDANTS filed Emergency Motions to Require WINDSOR’S submissions to the court be reviewed, Approved and Signed by a Member of the Florida BAR

(“BAR MOTION”). [APPENDIX-5153.] This EMERGENCY Motion is filled with false claims. It is unsigned and unsworn. DISREGARD.

8 of the 11 pages have separate sections for Montana Litigation [PP.2-3], Northern District of Georgia Litigation [PP.3-8], Texas Litigation [PP.8-9], and Florida Litigation [PP.9-10]. The inclusion of Montana, Georgia, and Texas required significant evidence to be added to the Record by WINDSOR.

On 02/18/2021, WINDSOR filed a signed verified Emergency Motion to Strike the BAR MOTION. It was filed pursuant to Rules, Statutes, Codes, and the Constitutions of Florida and the United States of America.” [APPENDIX-5154.] APPENDIX-5154 details why this “Emergency” Motion was a sham.
On 02/23/2021, JEFF ASHTON denied WINDSOR’s Motion with one word “denied.” [APPENDIX-5156.]
On 02/26/2021, WINDSOR filed a signed, sworn before a notary, 93-page Memorandum of Law regarding this Order [APPENDIX-5157] and a Motion for Reconsideration of the BAR MOTION [APPENDIX-5158.] It says: “There is no basis at all for the Defendants’ BAR MOTION, and there is NO EMERGENCY. The BAR MOTION is filled with false and deceptive information that may not

be considered as it was not provided in an affidavit under oath. On 02/23/2021, JEFF ASHTON denied Windsor’s Motion. This is a FRIVOLOUS ORDER – no basis in fact or law.”

APPENDIX-5158 makes excellent points with extensive citation to law.
On 03/02/2021, JEFF ASHTON filed an Order to Show Cause. [APPENDIX-6299.] In the first paragraph, he states: “Defendants request the issuance of an Order to Show Cause….” The DEFENDANTS’ Motion did not make any such request. [APPENDIX-5153.] This is a false and malicious statement by JEFF ASHTON and is a crime. APPENDIX-5153 is THE ONLY filing by the DEFENDANTS on this issue as the DOCKET shows. [APPENDICES-5019-6399.]
On 03/03/2021, DEFENDANTS filed an unsigned Motion to require WINDSOR’S submissions to the Court be reviewed, approved, and signed by a member of the Florida Bar and Memorandum of Law and Motion to find Pro Se Plaintiff in contempt of JUDGE KEST’s Order dated 10/01/2020 and Motion for Sanctions. [APPENDIX-5159.]

On 03/02/2021, an ORDER to Show Cause for 04/05/2021 at 10:30am was issued. [APPENDIX-6299.]
On 03/12/2021, WINDSOR’s signed, verified Motion to Strike STRANGE HIDDEN DOCKET ENTRY and Memorandum of Law was filed. [APPENDIX-5160.] WINDSOR believes this “strange hidden docket entry” was the combined effort of JEFF ASHTON and the Defense attorneys to hide the BAR MOTION from WINDSOR.
On 03/12/2021, Motions to Strike Answer and Amended Answer, Enter a Decree Pro Confesso; Enter Judgment in favor of the PLAINTIFF; and Schedule the Jury Trial for Damages were filed. [APPENDICES-5161-5162.]
On 03/16/2021, WINDSOR filed evidence. [APPENDICES-5162-5164-5165-5166-5167-5168-5169-5170-5171-5172-5173-5176-5177-5178.] This evidence was filed because the DEFENDANTS made false claims about emails WINDSOR sent, so he filed every cotton pickin’ one to prove the truth. APPENDIX-5176 is a notarized affidavit from WINDSOR setting the record straight on the false claims of the attorney for the DEFENDANTS.

On 03/17/2021, WINDSOR filed a Verified Motion to Strike Pleadings and Award Sanctions [APPENDIX-5174] and a Motion for Contempt for Violation of Rules. [APPENIX-5175].
On 03/18/2021, WINDSOR filed motions that were important to his case. [APPENDICES-6297-6328-6329-6336-6337-6338-6339.]

On 03/24/2021, JEFF ASHTON granted DEFENDANTS’ unsigned Motion for Protective Order. [APPENDIX-6340.]
On 03/25/2021, JEFF ASHTON implemented a scheme to avoid dealing with all the violations. He sua sponte entered an order without notice or an opportunity to be heard. APPENDIX-5181:

“WHEREAS, the Court, on March, 2 2021 set for hearing an Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff as the why the Court should not grant Defendant’s Emergency Motion to Require Pro Se Plaintiff William Windsor’s Submissions to the Court be Reviewed and Signed By A Member of the Florida Bar on April 5, 2021.

“WHEREAS, since the issuance of the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff has filed twenty-six items with the Clerk of Court in this matter. Among the motions, was a request for sixteen hours of hearing time on the Order to Show Cause. Among the matters filed, are item described as affidavits or exhibits totaling one thousand six-hundred-and-seventy-pages.

“The Clerk is hereby directed to decline to file any further documents by the pro se Plaintiff unless they contain a certificate by a member of the Florida Bar that have reviewed the matter and that the filing is appropriate. This Order shall remain in effect until close of business April, 5 2021.”

Nothing filed was improper, and the evidence was necessary due to the unsworn lies of the attorneys.
This violated the right to Due Process as it was issued without notice or an opportunity to be heard.
On 04/05/2021, a hearing on the unlawfully scheduled Order to Show Cause was held. [APPENDIX-6295.]
On 04/05/2021 at 3:13p.m., an Interim Order on Pro-Se Filings was issued. [APPENDIX-5185.] It stated that “the Court Order filed March 25, 2021 shall remain on full force and effect.” The 03/25/2021-ORDER is a void order issued in violation of Due Process as there was neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard.
On 04/05/2021 at 3:14p.m., an Interim Order On Pro-Se Filings was issued. [APPENDIX-5186.] It stated that “the Court Order filed March 25, 2021 shall remain on full force and effect.” The 03/25/2021-ORDER is a void order issued in violation of Due Process.

On 04/05/2021 at 3:24p.m., an ORDER Striking Pro-Se Filings from 03/27/2021 to 04/05/2021 was issued. [APPENDIX-5187.]
JEFF ASHTON likely has schizophrenia.
On 04/06/2021, an ORDER issued on the purported Courts Rule to Show Cause Requiring Pro-Se Plaintiff Submissions be reviewed by a Member of the Florida Bar. [APPENDIX-5189.] The ‘Show Cause” was a fraud.
On 04/06/2021, DEFENDANTS filed an unsigned Motion for Final Judgment against WINDSOR for failure to pay attorney’s fees and costs in contempt of this court’s order dated 02/04/2021. [APPENDIX-5188.] This outrage was discharged in bankruptcy.
On 04/06/2021, an Amended Interim Order on Pro Se Filings was issued. [APPENDIX-5190.]
On 09/08/2021, WINDSOR filed bankruptcy. [APPENDIX-5191.] Notices were docketed. [APPENDICES-5192-5193.] JEFF ASHTON received all of this and was totally aware of WINDSOR’s financial situation from hearings and filings.

On 08/10/2022 and 10/11/2022, WINDSOR filed REQUESTs FOR TRIAL DATE. [APPENDICES-6382-6383-6384.] APPENDIX-6384 explained that funds from 010270 would be used to pay creditors in bankruptcy.
On 10/13/2022, DEFENDANTS filed a Motion to Strike PLAINTIFFS Motion for Trial. [APPENDIX-6418.]
On 10/21/2022, a Uniform ORDER Set the Case for Jury Trial on 05/22/2023. [APPENDIX-5026.] There has been no trial.
On 10/25/2022, DEFENDANTS’ unsigned Amended Motion for Leave to Serve Additional Interrogatories was filed. [APPENDICES-6385-6386.] WINDSOR objected in a sworn response. [APPENDIX-6387.]
On 12/05/2022, WINDSOR filed a Request for Conference. [APPENDIX-6394.]
12/21/2022, WINDSOR filed a Second Amended Disclosure of Expert Witnesses. [APPENDIX-6391.] On 12/22/2022, Defendants’ unsigned Disclosure of Fact Witnesses was filed. [APPENDIX-6392.] On 12/20/2022, Defendants’ unsigned Disclosure of Expert Witnesses was filed. [APPENDIX-6393.]

DISREGARD.

On 12/26/2022, WINDSOR permanently lost the use of his left hand when a fall aggravated the injuries from the accident 6 years before. [APPENDIX-6404.] Nerve Conduction Studies show that his nerves do not work to his left hand. [APPENDIX-6400.] On 03/31/2023, he had MRIs for his cervical spine and lumbar spine. [APPENDICES-5041-5042.] The Reports show significant Disc Herniation and Disc Bulges with increased size and quantity in three years. [APPENDICES-6414-6415-6516-6417.]
WINDSOR’s quality of life was ruined by the Defendants. [APPENDICES-5032-5033-5034-5035-5036-5037-5038-5039-5040-5041-5042-6400-6414-6415-6516-6417.] He has no life now other than trying to obtain medical and financial relief in this matter.
Some believe the 05/05/2017 “accident” was attempted murder because Sean Boushie (attempted murderer on a Montana Interstate in 2013) was involved according to Carrie Broussard, an eyewitness who called 911 on 05/05/2017. [APPENDICES-5044-5045-5046.] 2 WINDSOR spoke with her, and she told him she had been in contact with Sean Boushie. She then lied about it at her

WINDSOR will file audio recordings on a Flash Drive in a separate filing with the Clerk.

deposition. It was strange that no motorist tried to help WINDSOR.

It was like there was a blockade of cars behind him.

WINDSOR needs hundreds of thousands of dollars in surgery, but corrupt Judge JEFF ASHTON denied WINDSOR any and all Constitutional rights. The absence of due process in this case is based in part on issues presented in SC22-7648.
Jerome Wilt was an eyewitness who called 911 on 05/05/2017 after observing WINDSOR’S wreck. [APPENDIX-5047.] He was the only eyewitness other than WINDSOR because trucker LONGEST has sworn he saw nothing. [APPENDIX-5048-P.22-LL.1-2–P.19-LL.9-25–P.20-LL.1-16.]
On 01/04/2023, Jerome Wilt testified at his deposition that he saw the 18-wheeler (semi) cause the accident, and he was afraid WINDSOR was seriously injured. He described how the semi crashed into WINDSOR’s lane, lifted all four wheels of his little convertible off the ground, and spun him around 180-degrees. [APPENDIX-5048-P.8-LL7-14;P.23-LL4-25;P.24-LL1-15;P.32-LL11-25;P.33-LL1-25;P.34-LL1-25;P.35-LL1-25;P.36-LL1-24;P.43-LL 7-25;P.42-LL1,16-25;P.43-LL1-8;P.46-LL8-25;P.47-LL1-4,20-24.]
On 01/05/2023, Defendants filed an unsigned Motion for

Protective Order and Objection to WINDSOR’s Request to Not Utilize a Court Reporter and/or Stenographer at all Depositions. [APPENDIX-5194.] DISREGARD.

On 01/04/2023, Defendants filed a Memorandum of Law in Objection to Subpoena to Dr. Stephen Goll. [APPENDIX-5195.]

DISREGARD. WINDSOR observed that Dr. Goll brought a detailed typed report of the results of his examination of WINDSOR before he conducted an examination. WINDSOR has been blocked from discovery.

From the early days in the case, the DEFENDANTS violated statutes, codes, and rules. Each of the judges involved in the case has allowed them to do so with no action taken against them. WINDSOR knew he was dealing with a corrupt group of judges and extremely dishonest attorneys. But he never dreamed until recently that they would get away with stealing his life. WINDSOR has learned one valuable lesson: Use an incompetent high-profile law firm because the facts and the law are very much secondary to whose palm has been greased.
DEFENDANTS’ Motion for Protective Order on All Discovery Pending Determination of Competency and Dismissal was

filed 08/04/2020. [APPENDIX-5091.] DISREGARD. There was no legal basis whatsoever for the motion to dismiss. Both DEFENDANTS filed it to defame WINDSOR with the Court and to make sure JUDGE KEST was aware that WINDSOR had been a leading activist on judicial corruption. This established extrajudicial bias against WINDSOR, someone who will fight dishonest and corrupt judges until the cows come home.

JEFF ASHTON became the judge in January 2021. He demonstrated complete bias against WINDSOR from his first involvement.
On 01/27/2021, JEFF ASHTON’s Judicial Assistant, Keitra Davis, emailed WINDSOR to set some deadlines. WINDSOR requested that the 02/02/2021 hearing be reset for another date as the deadline she set had passed. There was no response. [APPENDIX-6303.] His signed Motion provided financial information showing his sole source of income was social security and he had debts of $1,500,000.
On 01/28/2021, WINDSOR filed a Motion for Reconsideration of his Emergency Motion for Stay and/or Continuance. [APPENDIX-5140.] There was no response to this

Motion or WINDSOR’s emails as was sadly routine.

On 01/30/2021, WINDSOR filed a Second Emergency Motion for Stay and/or Continuance. [APPENDIX-5141.] WINDSOR was admitted to Waterman Hospital in Tavares, Florida and spent all day on 02/02/2021 with medical personnel; he was unable to attend the hearing.
On 02/02/2021, WINDSOR filed a Notarized Motion to Disqualify JEFF ASHTON with a Notarized Affidavit and Notarized Affidavit of Prejudice. [APPENDICES-5146-5147-5148]. It was denied on totally bogus grounds. [APPENDIX-6300.]
JEFF ASHTON denied WINDSOR’s Amended Motion for Reconsideration of Orders of JUDGE KEST at 10:13a.m. on 02/01/2021. [APPENDIX-5145.] Evelyn Wood in her prime could not have read the documents in three-hours-and-thirty-nine-minutes. JEFF ASHTON committed perjury when he wrote that he had reviewed the file.
On 02/01/2021, JEFF ASHTON denied the second motion for stay without explanation. [APPENDIX-5144.]
On 02/02/2021, JEFF ASHTON purportedly conducted a hearing without WINDSOR. [APPENDIX-6301.] WINDSOR was

hospitalized and was denied the opportunity to defend himself and to show that the attorneys for the DEFENDANTS had likely committed fraud upon the court with their outrageous request for attorney’s fees. The “Minutes” indicate that there was no testimony, and there was no evidence presented. JUDGE KEST only awarded attorney’s fees on two motions to compel. JEFF ASHTON allowed Scott L. Astrin to inflate the bill, and he did not have to provide any proof.

On 04/01/2021, WINDSOR filed a second Motion to Disqualify Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton. [APPENDICES 6396-6397.] APPENDIX–6396 is file-stamped by the Clerk of Court, but note on the Docket [APPENDIX-6362] that JEFF ASHTON had these filings removed from the court’s DOCKET. This is a crime – Florida Criminal Statute 839.13. Complete evidence was provided to the Orange County Sheriff on 03/10/2023, and a case was opened.
JUDGE MUNYON, JUDGE KEST, JEFF ASHTON, and the Defendants and their attorneys are responsible for this bankruptcy. If it was not for their dishonesty and corruption, WINDSOR would have received enough money from 010270 to avoid the costs and stigma of bankruptcy. He might be able to walk. He could regain

the use of his left hand. He could have teeth.

On 09/08/2021, WINDSOR filed an Application for Bankruptcy. [APPENDIX-5191.] [APPENDIX-5192.] [APPENDIX-5193.]
On 08/10/2022, the bankruptcy court lifted the stay to allow WINDSOR to pursue 010270 as his bankruptcy plan is to pay all debts in full with recovery from 010270. [APPENDIX-6363, P.1.]
WINDSOR tried unsuccessfully for many months to find an attorney to represent him in 010270. Then he tried to find an attorney who would review and sign his pleadings at low cost, and no one would. He even ran ads on Craigslist. [APPENDIX-6364.]
On 12/15/2022, WINDSOR’s bankruptcy attorney, Jeff Badgley, reluctantly agreed to review, sign, and approve his filings.
On 01/10/2023, WINDSOR’s Application for Indigent Status was approved by the Clerk. [APPENDIX-5197.] JEFF ASHTON received this and had detailed data about WINDSOR’s financial disaster through his Indigence Filing and his Bankruptcy Filing.
On 01/17/2023, the DEFENDANTS’ attorney, Jonathan Blake Mansker, called WINDSOR’s Bankruptcy attorney and

informed him that he would pursue sanctions and charges against him if he continued to sign WINDSOR’s pleadings. [APPENDIX-6398.] DISREGARD. WINDSOR believes he did this solely to conspire with JEFF ASHTON to damage WINDSOR.

On 01/24/2023, WINDSOR conducted an inspection of what was supposed to be the truck that hit him on 05/05/2017. Attorney Jonathan Blake Mansker lied and concealed the actual truck by using a different truck. APPENDIX-6401 is the fake truck. APPENDIX-6402 is the truck WINDSOR photographed after he was hit on 05/05/2017.
WINDSOR filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on 01/31/2023 on the issue of liability for Negligence. [APPENDIX-6209.] It was never heard.
On 02/10/2023, the DEFENDANTS’ attorney filed DEFENDANTS’ Amended Motion to Strike Improperly Named Individuals from Plaintiff’s Witness List and Motion for Sanctions Against Both WINDSOR and Attorney Jeffrey L. Badgley for “Continuing to File Frivolous and Repetitive Filings.” [APPENDIX-6222-P.3.] There was nothing frivolous or repetitive. [APPENDIX-5026.] The judges and attorneys identified as witnesses

are witnesses to two causes for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Amended witness lists are authorized by Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule-1.190 (e).

On many occasions, WINDSOR informed JEFF ASHTON that he was in bankruptcy and could not afford an attorney. JEFF ASHTON was well aware of the bankruptcy filing, the stay, and WINDSOR’s approval as Indigent. See, for example, SOC ¶¶20, 119, 120, 128, 130, 138, 146, 147, 148, 151.
On 02/16/2023, WINDSOR filed a Verified Affidavit regarding emails. [APPENDIX-6365.]
On 02/21/2023, JEFF ASHTON entered a sua sponte order REVOKING WINDSOR’s right of self-representation

(“02/21/2023-ORDER”). [APPENDIX-6237.] The 02/21/2023-ORDER shows clearly that there was neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard. It says: “…having reviewed the file and being otherwise fully informed, finds as follows….” [APPENDIX-6237-P.2.] the Order says:

The content of the order is false. The history of this case is replete with corrupt acts by JEFF ASHTON and wrongdoing by the attorneys for the DEFENDANTS. JEFF ASHTON never has any

facts to back up his lies, such as “review by counsel have utterly failed” and “plaintiff threatened a witness during cross examination.” Jeff Badgley did a fine job reviewing the filings; no fault was ever identified. WINDSOR never threatened a witness. This is proven by WINDSOR’s sworn affidavit and the Transcript. WINDSOR has never threatened, harassed, or abused. He has zealously represented himself, which is something legal representatives are supposed to do. (ABA Rules of Professional Responsibility.)

On 02/24/2023, WINDSOR filed a Complaint Against JEFF ASHTON with the State of Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission. There is no copy in the APPENDIX as the Commission requires confidentiality. [APPENDIX-6366.]
On 02/28/2023, WINDSOR terminated his bankruptcy attorney, Jeffrey Badgley, because he refused to sign documents after he was threatened by the DEFENDANTS’ attorney and Mansker filed charges against him. [APPENDICES-6371-6372-6373.] WINDSOR had prepaid Jeffrey Badgley in 2018, and he cannot afford an attorney. He has to represent himself in bankruptcy court.

On 03/08/2023, WINDSOR discovered evidence of a crime by JEFF ASHTON. On 04/01/2021 at 05:29:58 a.m., Windsor had filed his second written effort to get Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton removed. [APPENDIX-6367.] He found the Orange County Clerk’s Proof of Filing and Service, filed 04/01/2021 at 05:30a.m. [APPENDIX-6368.] He went to the Clerk’s website and discovered it was NOT ON THE DOCKET. [APPENDIX-6369.] WINDSOR has a 2021 pdf of the Docket when it showed that filing! [APPENDIX-6370–04/01/2021.]
JEFF ASHTON is dishonest. He stole or had someone steal those documents. He has obstructed justice.
On 03/10/2023, WINDSOR filed a criminal complaint against JEFF ASHTON with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, and a case was opened. JEFF ASHTON violated Florida Statutes 839.13 – Falsifying records.
On 03/20/2023 at 2:47p.m., WINDSOR, a Party, filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton [APPENDICES-6375-6374]. These were both file-stamped and docketed by Tiffany Moore Russell, the Clerk of Court. [APPENDIX-6362–DOCKET,P.2.]

WINDSOR sent them directly to her by mail since he was being blocked from filing.

On 04/01/2023, WINDSOR filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file Appellant’s Brief. [APPENDIX-6376.] There was no response. [APPENDIX-6377.]
On 01/10/2023, the Clerk of Court declared WINDSOR INDIGENT after review of his Application for Insolvency and Indigency. [APPENDIX-5197.] JEFF ASHTON received this and was totally aware of WINDSOR’s financial situation.
On 02/01/2023, WINDSOR executed a sworn affidavit in 010270 detailing the 05/05/2017 accident. [APPENDIX-6211.] 3
APPENDIX-6237 is a 02/21/2023 Order (“02/21/2023-ORDER”) “revoking Plaintiff’s right to self-representation.” It was entered sua sponte without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The 02/21/2023-ORDER indicates WINDSOR, the Plaintiff in 010270, was given 30 days to obtain counsel. The 02/21/2023-ORDER was perhaps issued in an effort to head off the Third

Exhibits to affidavits and some motions and responses may be accessed on the Docket of 2018-CA-010270-O.

Motion to Disqualify JEFF ASHTON [APPENDICES-6244-6245.] The 02/21/2023-ORDER is filled with false claims.

APPENDIX-6246 is the 03/22/2023 Order (“03/22/2023-ORDER”) striking and denying WINDSOR’s Motion to Disqualify JEFF ASHTON docketed at 11:22:45 am. The 03/22/2023-ORDER falsely claimed it was a violation of the court’s order of 02/21/2023, but Florida Statutes do not require a party to have representation on a motion to disqualify. And, the 03/22/2023-ORDER does not prohibit WINDSOR from filing; it only applies to the Clerk, and it does not attempt to unlawfully restrict the statute. [APPENDIX-6246-P.2.]
On 04/19/2023, a hearing was held. [APPENDIX 6408.] WINDSOR has been promised a transcript by the DEFENDANTS’ attorney, but nothing has been received. WINDSOR will supplement or amend this Brief when the missing transcripts are obtained.
APPENDIX-6261 is a 04/25/2023 Order at 9:34p.m. (“04/25/2023-ORDER”) dismissing 010270 with Prejudice. The 04/25/2023-ORDER is jam packed with false, unfounded claims.

APPENDIX-6263 is the 04/27/2023 Order at 7:12p.m. (“04/27/2023-ORDER-2”) dismissing 010270 with Prejudice. It is filled with false statements. WINDSOR was legally and financially unable to hire an attorney, and JEFF ASHTON knew it.
APPENDIX-6378 is the 06/27/2023 Order of the Florida Supreme Court (“06/27/2023-ORDER”) denying any right of appeal. The 6DCA ensured that there would be no Florida Supreme Court review by intentionally issuing an unelaborated decision.
APPENDIX-5001 is the 07/18/2023 Order (“07/18/2023-ORDER”) – a “FINAL ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.” 4

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

WINDSOR isn’t your ordinary pro-se party. He is one of the leading authorities on pro se legal issues in America. And, he is in Chapter 13 bankruptcy where federal criminal laws are involved.
This APPEAL should be quite a simple matter for an honest court. WINDSOR’s Constitutional rights to Due Process have been violated again and again and again. Courts and judges

WINDSOR does not believe any orders have been published.

have no discretion on Due Process issues. JEFF ASHTON denied Due Process, and he loses.

This is a case of unbridled corruption. JEFF ASHTON and the attorneys involved have violated just about every rule in the book.
JEFF ASHTON’s bias is overwhelming. JEFF ASHTON has violated criminal statutes.
JEFF ASHTON, the Clerk of the Court, and the judges of the Fifth District and Sixth District have impeded, obstructed, and influenced WINDSOR’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The actions of JEFF ASHTON and the Florida courts violate 18 U.S.C. 1519, a criminal statute.

ARGUMENT

THE DEFENDANTS NEVER FILED A LAWFUL ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT, SO THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ACTIONS OF THE JUDGES OR THE DEFENDANTS.

WINDSOR WON BY DEFAULT.

This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo” and a rational basis review.

The DEFENDANTS filed a joint unsigned ANSWER on 10/10/2018. [APPENDIX-5021.]

On 11/09/2020, DEFENDANTS filed a joint unsigned Answer to the Amended Complaint. [APPENDIX-5022.] This lack of a signature was never corrected.
The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) require a signed Answer. Without a signed Answer, there is no Answer. FRCP 1.140 says: “…a defendant must serve an answer….”
WINDSOR WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND FLORIDA……..
This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo” and a rational basis review.
The Constitutions of the United States and Florida guarantee due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Fla. Const. art. I, § 9.
Florida Constitution “9. Due process No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
“The denial of due process rights, including the opportunity to be heard, to testify, and to present evidence, is fundamental error.” Weiser v. Weiser, 132 So. 3d 309, 311 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2014). [Wanda I. Rufin, P.A. v. Borga, 294 So.3d 916 (Fla. App. 2020).]

There are many violations of Due Process identified in the Statement of the Case (“SOC”), referenced and incorporated here, but the most significant and easiest for this Court to use to grant this APPEAL are APPENDICES-6237-and-5181. APPENDICES-5185-5186-5187-5190 also violate Due Process.
APPENDIX-6237 is a 02/21/2023 Order (“02/21/2023-ORDER”) “revoking Plaintiff’s right to self-representation.” It was entered sua sponte without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The 02/21/2023-ORDER indicates WINDSOR, the Plaintiff in 010270, was given 30 days to obtain counsel. The 02/21/2023-ORDER shows clearly that there was neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard. It says: “…having reviewed the file and being otherwise fully informed, finds as follows:” [SOC-¶157.]
APPENDIX-5181 is a 03/25/2021 Order entered sua sponte without notice or an opportunity to be heard to require Pro-Se Plaintiff WINDSOR’s Submissions to the Court be Reviewed and Signed by a Member of the Florida Bar. [SOC-¶110.]

Due Process requires that citizens receive fair notice of what sort of conduct to avoid. The orders of 02/21/2023 and 03/25/2021 violated due process as there was no notice and no hearing. For legal authority, see Paragraphs 147, 129 – 142 of the Petition in U.S. Supreme Court Case#22-7648.
The Sixth Amendment provides the Constitutional right to self-representation. That right should be enjoyed without fear of harassment or judicial prejudice. Furthermore, no law, regulation, or policy should exist to abridge or surreptitiously extinguish that right.
JEFF ASHTON has expressed his disdain for Pro-Se parties. He has harassed WINDSOR and demonstrated extreme judicial prejudice. Consider these statements by JEFF ASHTON:
APPENDIX-6359–Transcript-P.4:8-11;P.29:3-18;P.29: 25;P.30:1-8;P.33:1-10.
On 03/19/2020, NEWLIN was removed as counsel. [APPENDIX-5050]. JEFF ASHTON falsely claimed on 04/05/2021 “this case has not proceeded at all towards trial or resolution.” There were 266 DOCKET entries in that time, including discovery efforts, motions for leave to file an amended complaint, WINDSOR

affidavits, motions for sanctions against the DEFENDANTS, two frivolous motions to dismiss the case by the DEFENDANTS, filing exhibits, recusal of JUDGE MUNYON, case management conference with JUDGE KEST, motion to recuse JUDGE KEST, JEFF ASHTON became judge, motion for reconsideration of JUDGE KEST orders, BAR MOTION by the DEFENDANTS, Memorandum of Law Regarding Pleadings signed by a Member of the Florida Bar, unlawful order to show cause, Motion to Strike ANSWER AND AMENDED ANSWER, ENTER A DECREE PRO CONFESSO; ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF; AND SCHEDULE THE JURY TRIAL FOR DAMAGES, evidence filing, motions designed to move toward trial, unlawful show cause hearing, and various bogus orders by JEFF ASHTON.

At the hearing on 4/5/2021, Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton accused WINDSOR of threatening a member of the judiciary and said it was contemptuous. This is what Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton said was a threat to a member of the judiciary (said under oath):

“352. MR. WINDSOR: “I’m going to make it my mission to expose you and Astrin.

“THE COURT (JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON): “All right. Mr. Windsor, that is a threat against this Court —

“MR. ASTRIN: “And myself.

“THE COURT (JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON): “Mr. Windsor, there is a limit. I have let you go on at length, but you have just threatened a member of the judiciary and that is a matter which is contemptuous. No sir, would you like to withdraw that comment or would you like to leave it in the record and face contempt? Because that, sir, will not be tolerated. Threatening a member of the judiciary in a court hearing is not going to be permitted.” [EXHIBIT A – Transcript of Hearing 4/5/2021 – P. 38: 18-25, P. 39:1-6.]”

Exposing corruption is not a threat. It is a First Amendment right. It has been my vocation since 2007. I have websites, including LawlessAmerica.com, and YouTube.com/lawlessamerica. I have produced and directed a documentary film on government and judicial corruption that was presented to every member of Congress on 2/5/2003.” [APPENDIX-6245-Paragraphs-352-353.]
At the hearing on 04/05/2021, Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton falsely and maliciously accused WINDSOR of being a liar: [APPENDIX-6245-Paragraphs 357-to-360.]

“357. THE COURT (JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON): “Well, sir, I want to reiterate what Mr. Astrin has said, that this case cannot go forward, but you’ve got to make a choice. You can either continue the way you have been, which — well, I mean, you can’t, if I grant the motion; you just can’t do anything.

“You cannot get around it by sending e-mails to my judicial assistant. We’re going to block you from communicating that way. But we are more than, more than happy to consider any motion that you file which is signed and approved by a member of the Florida Bar.

“So the motion is granted. The interim order that I filed will be extended to be a permanent order in this case. Mr. Astrin, if you would like to prepare a proposed order and send it to me, please send it in Word because I’m sure I will be making changes and additions to it.

“Send a copy of that to Mr. Windsor as well so that he will know what you submitted to me. I will submit the order. In the interim, I’m going to prepare a brief order extending my prior order until the new order is written and fully done.

“Mr. Windsor, I hope that you get an attorney involved in this case, because I think there’s a case here that needs to be litigated. But the case needs to be litigated not on personalities.

“So that is the ruling of the Court. Thank you all very much.

Mr. Astrin, I’m looking forward to seeing your proposed order.

“Mr. Windsor, I don’t — I mean, I don’t – if I ask you not to e-mail my JA anymore, will you do it?

“MR. WINDSOR: “Your Honor, I have only e-mailed her when necessary. But she is listed as one of the contacts on the E-portal and I would be happy to remove her from that –

“THE COURT (JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON): “Mr. Windsor, you e-mailed my JA 214 times since Thursday. Since Thursday.

“MR. WINDSOR: “Absolutely not, Your Honor.

“THE COURT (JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON): “Well, you’re calling my secretary a liar and I know that she’s telling me the truth about that, so that ain’t going to happen. So I’ll block you from e-mail, again. If you have a lawyer that wants to communicate with us on your behalf, we will be happy to speak with him.” [EXHIBIT 4060 – P.36: 9-25; P.37: 1-25; P. 38: 1-4.]

“358. I sent three emails to Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton’s Judicial Assistant from Thursday April 1, 2021 to Monday April 5, 2021. THREE (3) not 214. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton is a liar and calling me a liar in open court is a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. As Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton does not have 214 emails as evidence, this proves he is aa damn liar. This is perjury. This is fraud upon the court.”

“359. At the hearing on 4/5/2021, Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton established his bias against me as a senior citizen and a person with a disability after I mentioned difficulty finding something in my records:

“MR. WINDSOR: “Sorry, Your Honor. I do suffer from a cognitive decline that makes it impossible for me to remember if I just took my pills.

“THE COURT (JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON): “Well, sir, since you’ve raised that, if you suffer from that cognitive decline so that you can — as you said you can’t remember – – you have no short-term memory, how is it that you can represent yourself if you can’t remember whether you took your pills a few minutes ago?” [EXHIBIT 4060 – P. 21: 4- 12.]

“360. Following the hearing on 4/5/2021 at 11:51 a.m., I printed the DOCKET in Case # 2018-010270-O. [EXHIBIT 4057.] It shows all of my evidence was on file at the time of the Hearing, but Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton refused to consider any of it.”

JEFF ASHTON said and did the following on 01/11/2023 and 02/21/2023 [APPENDIX-6245-Notarized-Affidavit-Paragraphs-382-to-385; 391-to-393]:

“382. In January 2023, a hearing was held on 1/11/2023, but Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton changed it to a hearing on a

Defendants’ Motion rather than the motion I had scheduled. On 1/24/2023, an Inspection of the Boise Cascade Truck was finally held. I obtained very damaging evidence against the Defendants. On 1/27/2023, Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton denied me access to damning evidence against the Defendants and their Hired Gun Goll. He also introduced his plan to bifurcate to try to screw me more. On 1/30/2023, I filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. It is a slam dunk if the judge was honest. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton entered other orders to damage me.

“383. The lowlight in February 2023 came on 2/21/2023 when Jeff Asshton purportedly entered an order on the docket sua sponte that took away my Constitutional rights. Fortunately, I was left with my shirt, pants, shoes, fingers, tongue, and member.

“384. I believe Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton will say and do anything. I never threatened a witness during cross examination resulting in the Court requiring the continuation of the deposition to be taken by a licensed attorney or before a Special Master. The transcript and tape recording show that I was polite and attempting to protect the dishonest witness by encouraging him to have legal counsel because I was preparing to sue him and had already reported him to his superiors with the Florida Highway Patrol. This was explained to Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton in open court, and he said, “I don’t believe for a second anything you said.” I cannot afford the TRANSCRIPT of the 2/10/2023 Hearing, but I do have a tape recording of the hearing that I will use in my lawsuit against Jeff Ashton to prove just how significant he is as a liar. I am also working several angles in an effort to get my eye son the other Ashley Madison emails sent by the Dog.

“385. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton, not known for his honesty a la Ashley Madison, outrageously claimed I threatened to un-necessarily prolong the questioning of the witness at trial. What a liar. I said if Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton denied a deposition, I would just have to ask the questions at the trial.

That was no threat. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton will prolong the trial if I continue to be denied all forms of discovery, or he will simply disallow everything I need to prove my case.

“391. Then Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton wrote on 2/21/2023 at 12:09:51 p.m.: ‘In response to the hearing set for this date Plaintiff has returned to his abusive filings. He has, in the last four days filed 1,504 documents. Plaintiff has previously been sanction for his abusive conduct in litigation. The right to self-presentation does not the right to threaten, harass and abuse.’

“392. Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton made all of this up. I have not threatened, harassed, or abused in legal proceedings. I am writing a book about this case, and it will be brutally honest. I will spread the word far and wide on social media. I plan protests at the Orange County Courthouse, and I will utilize every legal means possible to expose Jeffrey L. Ashton, Lisa T. Munyon, and others.

“393. In the last FOUR days, I had filed four docket entries totaling 429 pages. If 2/17/2023 is added to the equation, it was 1,062 pages. [EXHIBIT 4091.] There was one motion and one affidavit. All the rest was evidence to prove the malicious and false claims of the Defendants. I produced every document with my right hand and index finger from emails in my email program. This was done to provide incontrovertible proof that I did nothing but file evidence that proved the attorney for the Defendants filed a false, malicious motion. Everything I filed was e-filed by me, all on pdfs, so it did not take any precious time from the Clerk’ staff. Besides, when you have evidence that is needed, it is the Clerk’s job to get it handled efficiently. If she doesn’t know how, I am available at $250 per hour to come and straighten out their systems.”

The DEFENDANTS’ motion failed to meet the requirements for the entry of an injunction. The DEFENDANTS do not have standing to seek an injunction, and the attorneys failed to

state the essential elements. JEFF ASHTON completely ignored this.

There was neither factual nor legal basis for these orders.
The DEFENDANTS’ Motion identified WINDSOR cases in Georgia, Texas, Montana, and elsewhere, but other states are not relevant.
The Due Process Clause entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal. See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259-262, 266-267 (1978); Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 344 (1976); Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 172, (1951); Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980).
JEFF ASHTON is totally biased against WINDSOR as shown in the Statement of Case (“SOC”).
Canon 3E, Fla. CJC, and Rule 2.160, Fla. R. Jud. Admin., mandate that a judge disqualify himself in a proceeding “in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The disqualification rules require judges to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. JEFF ASHTON shows nothing but impropriety. Crosby
State, 97 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1957); State ex rel. Davis v. Parks, 141 Fla. 516, 194 So. 613 (1939); Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577, 140

So. 459 (1932); State ex rel. Mickle v. Rowe, 100 Fla. 1382, 131 So. 3331 (1930).

JEFF ASHTON violated Canon 3E, Fla. CJC, and Rule 2.160, Fla. R. Jud. Admin.
For due process and to secure Constitutional rights judges may not take the law into their own hands. But this is precisely what JEFF ASHTON has done. He has ignored the law, ignored the facts, and claimed laws and rules provide something they do not provide, while abusing and disadvantaging WINDSOR.
For due process to be secured, the laws must operate alike upon all and not subject the individual to the arbitrary exercise of governmental power. (Marchant v. Pennsylvania R.R., 153 U.S. 380, 386 (1894).) JEFF ASHTON has violated Windsor’s rights by using his power to inflict his bias.
For due process, WINDSOR has the right to protections expressly created in statute and case law. Due process allegedly ensures the government will respect all of a person’s legal rights and guarantee fundamental fairness. JEFF ASHTON violated WINDSOR’s rights by using his power to ignore facts and the law.
JEFF ASHTON has interfered with the process and

violated rules for the purpose of damaging WINDSOR.

An inherent Constitutional right is the honesty of the judge. JEFF ASHTON has not been honest. He has lied, committed perjury, committed crimes, and has proven to be supremely dishonest. WINDSOR has not been treated fairly in any way.
Judges have violated the Constitution and laws intentionally. (Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934; Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 (1970); Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).)
In 010270, the fundamental right to have the courts accept WINDSOR’s sworn affidavits as true has been violated. (Marchant v. Pennsylvania R.R., 153 U.S. 380, 386 (1894).)
Judges haven’t shown an ounce of impartiality. (Marshall
Jerrico, 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980); Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 195 (1982).)

In 010270, judges have denied the process that is due.

(Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934).)

Litigants have the right to equal protection of the law regardless of race, creed, color, religion, ethnic origin, age, handicaps, or sex. WINDSOR is 74, white, born male and still

male, Presbyterian, handicapped, and anti-corruption, and he has not received equal protection as a Pro-Se party.

WINDSOR has been denied recourse to the laws.
Judges in Florida have violated WINDSOR’s rights by using their power to inflict their bias.
Due process requires an established course for judicial proceedings designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual.
The Constitution guarantees WINDSOR a fair and impartial judge. Florida judges denied WINDSOR’s guarantee to inflict their extra-judicial bias.

Every person “has a constitutional and statutory right to an impartial and fair judge at all stages of the proceeding.” (Liteky v U.S., 510 US 540 (1994). (See Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n. 35, 96 S. Ct. 3037; Johnson v. Mississippi, 403 U.S. 212, 216 (1971); accord Concrete Pipe & Prods. V. Constr. Laborers Pension, 508 U.S. 602, 617 (1993) (citation omitted).)

Due process is supposed to guarantee basic fairness and to make people feel that they have been treated fairly.

“justice must give the appearance of justice” (Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S. Ct. 11, 13 (1954).) (Peters v. Kiff, 407, U.S. 493, 502 (1972).)

At a basic level, procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of “fundamental fairness.” For example, in

1934, the Florida Supreme Court held that due process is violated “if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.”

Where an individual is facing a (1) deprivation of (2) life, liberty, or property, (3) procedural due process mandates that he is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge.

Substantive due process refers to the rights granted in the first eight amendments to the Constitution. Fifth Amendment due process means substantially the same as Fourteenth Amendment due process.

Judges in Florida have a Constitutional duty to WINDSOR. Florida judges have violated Windsor’s civil and constitutional rights under color of law.

“[t]rial before an ‘unbiased judge’ is essential to due process.” Johnson v. Mississippi, 403 U.S. 212, 216 (1971); accord Concrete Pipe & Prods. V. Constr. Laborers Pension, 508 U.S. 602, 617 (1993) (citation omitted). (Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 344 (1976); Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 502 (1972).

The due process clauses of both the Florida and the

United States Constitutions guarantee a party an impartial and disinterested tribunal in civil cases. (Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 1613 (1980).)

Partiality in favor of the government may raise a defendant’s due process concerns. In re United States of America, 441 F.3d at 66 (citing In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955).

Judges in Florida have effectively denied WINDSOR’s rights of the equal protection under the law in Article VI of the Constitution. Their actions prove that they have exercised their power in this and other actions for their own personal purposes rather than the will of the law.

Littleton v. Berbling, 468 F.2d 389, 412 (7th Cir. 1972), citing Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat (22 U.S.) 738, 866, 6 L.Ed 204 (1824); U.S. v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1990).

The orders issued by judges in Florida suggest the appearance of animosity towards WINDSOR.
These latest purported orders from JEFF ASHTON deny WINDSOR his fundamental Constitutional right of access to the courts, “unquestionably a right of considerable constitutional significance.” Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1096 (11th Cir. 2008).) Meaningful access to the courts is a constitutional

right. (Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1072 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (en banc).) [emphasis added.]

In Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069 (11th Cir. 1986) (en banc), the Court held that the district court’s injunction was overbroad and violated a prisoner’s right to access courts because it barred him from filing any case in the district court without an attorney, which, given the facts of his case, effectively prevented him from filing any future suit. 792 F.2d at 1070-71. WINDSOR’s financial situation, bankruptcy, and the wrongdoing of JEFF ASHTON prevented him from any involvement in his case. Surely this is unheard of.

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION OR FLORIDA STATUTE TO ALLOW A JUDGE TO DENY OR REVOKE WINDSOR’S RIGHT OF SELF-REPRESENTATION.

This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo” and a rational basis review.

There is no statute or rule to allow a judge to revoke a Plaintiff’s right to represent himself in a civil case.
But on 02/21/2023, JEFF ASHTON entered an order (02/21/2023-ORDER) [APPENDIX-6237] without notice of any type.

JEFF ASHTON cited his authority for the 02/21/2023-ORDER as Lowery v. Kaplan 650 So. 2d 114 (4 DCA 1995) and Rodriguez-Diaz v. Abate 613 So, 2d 515 (3DCA 1993). Both of these cases involved criminals and indicate that notice and an opportunity to be heard are requirements. There was no notice or opportunity to be heard in this matter. “THIS MATTER” didn’t “come before the Court.” This is a sua sponte order that is void.
There was no order to show cause. [APPENDIX-6362.] There was no opportunity to be heard.
WINDSOR believes JEFF ASHTON issued the 02/21/2023-ORDER because he knew WINDSOR couldn’t afford an attorney, so this set him up for dismissal of 010270.

THE 03/22/2023-ORDER VIOLATES FLORIDA STATUTE 38.10, THE GENERAL FLORIDA DISQUALIFICATION STATUTE.
This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo” and a rational basis review.
Florida Statute 38.10 authorizes a “party” to seek disqualification of the judge. WINDSOR is the Plaintiff, a party to the action. [APPENDIX-6362–DOCKET,P.1.]

On 03/20/2023 at 2:48p.m., WINDSOR, filed an Affidavit of Prejudice of Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton. It was docketed on 03/21/2023. APPENDICES-6244-6245 provide an excellent look at all the wrongdoing of JEFF ASHTON, so it will not be re-typed here.
There is nothing in Florida Statute 38.10 that requires a party to be represented by counsel or that allows a judge to deny a party the right to seek this relief.
WINDSOR’s motions were premised on Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule-2.330, Florida Statutes, and the Florida CJC, all of which require that a judge disqualify himself once a party has established a reasonable fear that he will not obtain a fair hearing. See Florida Rules of Judicial Admin 2.160; Fla. Stat. §§ 38.02, 38.10; Fla. CJC, Canon 3-B (7) and E. 2 I.
JEFF ASHTON violated this law because he proceeded further in the case.

THE CASES CITED BY JUDGE JEFF ASHTON DO NOT PROVIDE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REVOKE WINDSOR’S RIGHT OF SELF-REPRESENTATION AS HE DID.

This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo” and a rational basis review.
There is no legal authority to allow a judge to revoke a Plaintiff’s right to represent himself in a civil case. But on 02/21/2023, JEFF ASHTON entered the 02/21/2023-ORDER without notice of any type. The 02/21/2023-ORDER has no legal authority. [APPENDIX-6237.]
The arbitrary and irrational exercise of power by JEFF ASHTON violated WINDSOR’s due process rights.
The rights of parties cannot be taken without notice and opportunity for hearing. The action by JEFF ASHTON was unreasonable and unjust. WINDSOR did nothing wrong. JEFF ASHTON’s purported complaint was that WINDSOR was filing evidence after being denied an evidentiary hearing after the Defendants filed and submitted to the Court 275 pages of documents. [APPENDIX-6362—DOCKET-02/10/2013.] The attorney for the DEFENDANTS continued to lie about this and everything. As WINDSOR was not allowed to submit evidence at a hearing, then a sworn affidavit authenticating the exhibits was the only other option. JEFF ASHTON chose to ignore the Constitution,

due process, statutes, rules, and codes because his sole purpose was to damage WINDSOR.

THERE IS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DENY WINDSOR HIS RIGHT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF.

This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo” and a rational basis review.
American courts have secured the right to represent oneself in court since the beginning of the nation. The Judiciary Act of 1789 recognized the right to personally present oneself in court without a lawyer. In 1948, this right was reaffirmed under U.S.C. § 1654 which reads: “In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.”
The United States Constitution, the Florida Constitution, and a massive amount of case law provide WINDSOR has the right to represent himself in court.
In Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885) Justice Bradley wrote: “It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the

Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be Obsta Principiis.”

See also Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); Gomillion Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603.
1. The Florida Supreme Court says this: “A person should not be forced to have an attorney represent his legal interests if he does not consent to such representation. All citizens in our state are also guaranteed access to our courts by Article I, Section 21, Florida Constitution (1968).” [Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 1978).] [emphasis added.]
Several courts have written: “The right to represent oneself in a civil proceeding is on a scale of importance equal to the right of trial by jury.”
Rule 2.6 of the Rules of Judicial Conduct published by the American Bar Association reaffirm this right.
S. Supreme Court Cases reaffirming the right to self-representation include: Osborn v. Bank of the United States (1824); Haines v. Kerner (1972); Faretta v. California (1975); Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905; Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395

U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233; Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938); Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442; Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968); Butz v. Economou, 98 S. Ct. 2894 (1978); United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261 (1882); Olmstad v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928); Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382 (1894); Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U.S. 657, 662 (1893); Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321, 337 (1885); Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312, 332. Other relevant federal opinions include Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals; Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas, 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996); Cannon v. Comm. on Judicial Qualifications, (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 694; Geiler v. Comm. on Judicial Qualifications, (1973) 10 Cal.3d 270, 286; and Gonzalez v. Comm. on Judicial Performance, (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 359, 371, 374;

VII. THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND OTHER FILINGS BY THE DEFENDANTS ARE UNSIGNED AND MUST BE DISREGARDED AND CONSIDERED VOID.

This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo.”

The purported motions of the DEFENDANTS are unsigned. They must be disregarded and stricken. [APPENDIX-6410.]
A signature is not optional. The signature is much more than a person’s name. Rule 2.515 of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration dictates the requirement:

“Every document of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least 1 attorney of record….

Therefore, there is no proof that any attorney read the motions, and there is no certification that, to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, there is good ground to support the motions.
There are many cases where pleadings were declared nullities because they were not properly signed.

See Daytona Migi Corp. v. Daytona Automotive Fiberglass, Inc., 417 So.2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (holding a notice of appeal signed by a non-attorney corporate officer a nullity); Quinn v. Housing Auth. of Orlando, 385 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (reversing summary judgment in favor of corporate housing authority, holding its complaint signed and filed by a non-attorney void); Nicholson Supply Co. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc., 184 So.2d 438 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1966) (affirming trial court’s striking of plaintiff corporation’s complaint holding the complaint a nullity where it was filed and signed by the corporation’s non-attorney president).

But in this case, there are no signatures at all except on one affidavit about legal fees!
This Court must strike the unsigned documents.
None of the exhibits have been authenticated, so all must be disregarded.

VIII. THIS CASE INVOLVES VOID ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS THAT HAVE NO LEGAL EFFECT.

This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed by the “de novo” standard of review.
Void Orders and Void Judgments have no legal force or effect. For legal authority, see Paragraphs 129–142 of the Petition in U.S. Supreme Court Case#22-7648. [APPENDIX-6360.]
THERE IS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DENY WINDSOR THE RIGHT TO FILE A MOTION TO RECUSE AND DISQUALIFY JUDGE JEFFREY L. ASHTON.

This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed by the “de novo” standard of review.
The law is clear that a PARTY has that right. JEFF ASHTON had no authority to remove Plaintiff WINDSOR as a PARTY and did not.

JEFF ASHTON has violated Windsor’s Constitutional rights. See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259-262, 266-267 (1978); Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 344 (1976); Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 172, (1951); Marshall Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980).

Canon 3E, Fla. CJC, and Rule 2.160, Fla. R. Jud. Admin., mandate that a judge disqualify himself in a proceeding “in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” See Crosby v. State, 97 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1957); State ex rel. Davis v. Parks, 141 Fla. 516, 194 So. 613 (1939); Dickenson v. Parks, 104 577, 140 So. 459 (1932); State ex rel. Mickle v. Rowe, 100 Fla. 1382, 131 So. 3331 (1930).

JEFF ASHTON has lied and demeaned Windsor in open court hearings. WINDSOR has tape recordings of JEFF ASHTON if this Court would like to hear them. They prove his lies in his court orders.
An inherent Constitutional right is the honesty of the judge. JEFF ASHTON has not been honest. He has violated Canons 1, 2, and 3 of the CJC.

THE ACTIONS OF JEFF ASHTON AND THE FLORIDA COURTS ARE CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF 18 U.S.C. 1519.

This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo.”
The actions of JEFF ASHTON and the Florida courts violate 18 U.S.C. 1519:

18 U.S. Code § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

“Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

JEFF ASHTON and the Clerk of the Court have made false entries in the Record. Filings have disappeared from the DOCKET.
JEFF ASHTON, the Clerk of the Court, and the judges of the Fifth District and Sixth District have impeded, obstructed, and influenced WINDSOR’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy. WINDSOR’s documented bankruptcy plan has been to represent himself Pro-Se

in 010270 and get a jury award more than sufficient to pay all creditors in full.

By claiming WINDSOR has to pay attorneys when he has no money or access to money due to bankruptcy and the control of all of his assets by the Trustee, these people have violated 18 U.S.C. 1519.
By denying WINDSOR’s legal rights and dismissing the case because he can’t pay an attorney, JEFF ASHTON has unlawfully blocked WINDSOR’s reorganization plan which is a sure winner. If a man named Leroy gets $990,000 from being rear-ended at a stop light, WINDSOR should receive millions for permanent disability from being sent airborne by an 18-wheeler at 70 miles per hour. [APPENDIX-6361.]
JEFF ASHTON AND THE CLERK OF COURT DESTROYED EVIDENCE AND VIOLATED FLORIDA STATUTE 839.13.

This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo.”

“…if any judge, justice, mayor, alderman, clerk, sheriff, coroner, or other public officer, or employee or agent of or contractor with a public agency, or any person whatsoever, shall steal, embezzle, alter, corruptly withdraw, falsify or avoid any record, process, charter, gift, grant, conveyance, or contract, or any paper filed in any judicial proceeding in any court of this state, or shall knowingly and willfully take off,

discharge or conceal any issue, forfeited recognizance, or other forfeiture, or other paper above mentioned, or shall forge, deface, or falsify any document or instrument recorded, or filed in any court, or any registry, acknowledgment, or certificate, or shall fraudulently alter, deface, or falsify any minutes, documents, books, or any proceedings whatever of or belonging to any public office within this state; or if any person shall cause or procure any of the offenses aforesaid to be committed, or be in anywise concerned therein, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.”

See SOC ¶¶142-and-161.
The actions of JEFF ASHTON and the Clerk of the Court violated Florida Statute 839.13.

XII. THERE ARE NO FACTUAL FINDINGS TO SUPPORT DISMISSAL.

This is a fact issue to be reviewed “de novo.”
As the Statement of Case and APPENDIX show, there are no factual findings. Judges are not authorized to make up facts.

XIII. JEFF ASHTON COMMITTED MANY VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW, RULES, AND CODES

This is a pure legal issue to be reviewed “de novo.”
There were so many errors in the process and procedures that resulted in an “unfavorable” decision that there is

too much to repeat. All of the pages above are referenced and incorporated here.

An injunction may not be issued to block a legal act. It is legal for WINDSOR to represent himself. It is legal for a person in bankruptcy to represent himself when authorized by the federal bankruptcy court.
The action of JEFF ASHTON is an injunction, and an injunction may not be issued to block a legal act.
The Court abused its discretion by denying WINDSOR the ability to obtain needed discovery. WINDSOR was denied due process. The Judge repeatedly denied discovery requests that were essential in support of WINDSOR’s case.
WINDSOR was denied the opportunity to depose anyone from BOISE. WINDSOR was denied the opportunity to cross-examine Trooper Linzmeyer.
The Court allowed the DEFENDANTS to abuse discovery at every turn.
The abuse of the legal system and WINDSOR in this case is staggering. There are many, many cases of perjury by the DEFENDANTS and JEFF ASHTON. Attorneys for the

DEFENDANTS have committed a significant number of violations of rules, ethics and the law. THEY HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO DO SO BY JUDGE ASHTON! They have lied and cheated, and they have been rewarded as a result, while punishing WINDSOR day-in and day-out.

The DEFENDANTS deceived the Court Record with complete, total fabrications. Their attorneys have lied repeatedly apparently knowing that they could get away with it.
This case has False pleadings, altered documents, perjury galore, destruction of evidence, and plain old corruption.
THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS TO REQUIRE WINDSOR TO RETAIN AN ATTORNEY OR HAVE HIS CASE DISMISSED, ESPECIALLY SINCE HE IS IN CHAPTER 13 BANKRUPTCY.

JEFF ASHTON had no legal basis to require a bankrupt Plaintiff to hire an attorney. The Trustee controls all assets, and WINDSOR’s sole source of income was Social Security Retirement that was insufficient to over all of his mandatory bills. WINDSOR’s written Plan was to represent himself Pro-Se so there would be no expense to the Estate. The Trustee was unwilling to act as WINDSOR’s attorney or signer.

JEFF ASHTON didn’t care. He had one and only one goal: Bury WINDSOR and save the DEFENDANTS millions of dollars.

CONCLUSION

For all the reasons stated above, WINDSOR respectfully urges the Court to enter an Order granting this APPEAL; vacate all orders of dismissal; vacate all Orders of Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton; remove Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton from 010270; grant WINDSOR’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and instruct the new judge to proceed in a manner consistent with this Court’s decision.

WINDSOR seeks action by this Court in compliance with 18 U.S.C. 4.

WINDSOR seeks an order providing any other relief that this Court feels is proper.

This 25th day of August 2023,

/s/ William M. Windsor

William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, SD 57108

352-###-####

windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing by Electronic Mail or United States Postal Service:

Matthew J. Conigliaro

Carlton Fields, P.A.

4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000, Tampa, Florida 33607

229-4254, mconigliaro@carltonfields.com, devans@carltonfields.com, tpaecf@cfdom.net

Blake Mansker, Scott Warburton

Adams | Coogler, P.A.

1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. Suite 1600

West Palm Beach, FL 33401-2329

Telephone: 561-478-4500 — Fax: 561-478-7847

bmansker@adamscoogler.com, rurban@adamscoogler.com,

swarburton@adamscoogler.com, and ajohnson@adamscoogler.com

Judge Jeffrey L. Ashton, Keitra Davis

Orange County Courthouse

425 N Orange, Courtroom 18-C, Orlando, FL 32801

407-836-2008, 37orange@ninthcircuit.org, ctjakd3@ocnjcc.org,

Barry5515@gmail.com

Roberta Walton Johnson

General Counsel for Clerk of the Circuit Court

Orange County Florida, Orange County Clerk of Courts, PO Box

4994, 425 N. Orange Ave, Suite 2110 Orlando, FL 32802, 407-836-6324, ADM-ContactAdminDiv@mvoraneeclerk.com, roberta.waltonjohnson@nyorangeclerk.com

This 25th day of August 2023,

/s/ William M. Windsor

William M. Windsor

xii

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that I have complied with Rule 9.210(a)(2)(B) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. This Brief contains 12,966 words.

The cover sheet, the tables of contents and citations, the certificates of service and compliance, and the signature block for the brief’s author shall be excluded from the word count and page limits in subdivisions (a)(2)(A)–(a)(2)(D). For briefs on jurisdiction, the statement of the issues also shall be excluded from the page limit in subdivision (a)(2)(A). All pages not excluded from the computation shall be consecutively numbered.

This 25th day of August 2023,

/s/ William M. Windsor

William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

352-###-####

windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com

xiii

VERIFICATION

My name is William M. Windsor. My date of birth is October 2, My address is 5013 S Louise Ave #1134, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108, Lincoln County, USA.

Pursuant to Florida Statute 92.525, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct based upon my personal knowledge.

This 25th day of August 2023,

/s/ William M. Windsor

William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108

windsorinsouthdakota@yahoo.com

Tag: Appellants Brief

Bill Windsor Appellants Brief in Attempted Murder by 18-Wheeler Finally Docketed